Ex parte SAUND

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 15, 2002

08897405 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2002)

1–
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte ERIC SAUND
________________
Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-28, all of the pending claims.
The invention is directed to controlling a computing
Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
2–
device through recognition of hand drawn markings. More
particularly, the hand drawn marks are rendered in electronic
form by the use of a video camera and the electronic
representation of the marks is analyzed to identify two types
of hand drawn marks; a command designator, indicating a
particular type of function or operation to be performed, and
a selection designator, the detection of which causes the
function of operation to be performed.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A method of initiating an action of a computing
device using a hand drawn command designator hand drawn on a
surface that produces no output in electronic form, an
electronic camera system capturing an image of a set of hand
drawn marks on the surface to generate an electronic rendition
of the surface, the set of hand drawn marks including the
command designator, a selection designator and other hand
drawn marks, the method comprising:
a) analyzing the set of hand drawn marks represented by
the electronic rendition of the surface to recognize the hand
drawn command designator;
b) analyzing the set of hand drawn marks represented by
the electronic rendition of the surface to recognize the
presence on the surface of the hand drawn selection
designator, the presence of the selection designator
indicating selection of the action associated with the command
designator; and
c) initiating performance of the action by the computing
Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
3–
device if the hand drawn selection designator is present.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Endo et al. (Endo) 5,012,521 Apr. 30, 1991
Bloomberg et al. (Bloomberg) 5,201,011 Apr. 06, 1993
Hargrove 5,371,847 Dec. 06, 1994
(filed Sep. 22, 1992)
Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Bloomberg and Endo
with regard to claims 1-10, 12, 15-24 and 26, adding Hargrove
to this combination with regard to claims 11, 13, 14, 25, 27
and 28.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We REVERSE.
It is the examiner’s position that Bloomberg discloses a
hand drawn designator for initiating an action of a computing
device and an analysis of an electronic version of the hand
drawn designator to recognize the designator. However, the
Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
4–
examiner recognizes that Bloomberg fails to disclose the
claimed set of hand drawn marks including a command
designator, a selection designator and other hand drawn marks,
an analysis to determine the presence of the selection
designator indicating the selection of the action to be
performed and the initiation of that action
by the computing device if the hand drawn selection designator
is present.
The examiner turns to Endo to supply these recognized
deficiencies in Bloomberg and contends that it would have been
obvious to combine Endo’s selection designators and command
designators with Bloomberg’s image markup detection device
because “it would have provided a method to perform various
editing operations on the text surrounded by Bloomberg’s
circles” [answer-pages 4-5].
Our analysis of Bloomberg comports with appellant’s
assessment that Bloomberg merely “teaches the identification
of hand drawn marks on a medium by distinguishing such marks
from machine written (e.g. printed) marks” [brief-page 5].
The examiner’s combination of teachings would take the
extraction of the hand drawn marks taught by Bloomberg and
Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
5–
analyze those marks as taught by Endo. As far as this
reasoning goes, we have no problem with the combination. The
problem is that the claims require more than a mere analysis
of extracted hand drawn marks.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, that the set of
hand drawn marks includes “the command designator, a selection
designator and other hand drawn marks.” This set of hand
drawn marks is analyzed to recognize the hand drawn command
designator and then the set is analyzed to recognize the
presence of the
hand drawn selection designator, whose presence indicates the
selection of the action associated with the command
designator.
Appellant argues that in Endo, analysis is performed on
all hand drawn marks and not on merely a subset of those
marks, i.e., only on the command designator and the selection
designator. This argument seems to be borne out by reference
to Endo’s Figure 1 which shows that every tablet input, i.e.,
every hand drawn mark, is subject to pattern recognition at
box 38. Of course, if every hand drawn mark in Endo
constituted only command designators and selection
Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
6–
designators, appellant’s argument would fail.
In any event, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 because we find no
evidence in Bloomberg or Endo that those references
contemplate distinguishing a command designator and a
selection designator from other hand drawn marks, wherein the
presence of the selection designator indicates selection of
the action associated with the command designator. The
examiner cites column 4, lines 24-67, of Endo for a showing of
distinguishing a command designator from other hand drawn
marks. That portion of Endo describes various inputs,
including, for example, “X,” “/,” and closed parentheses,
representative of the commands “erase,”
“cut,” and “wrap,” respectively.
While we agree that Endo certainly discloses hand drawn
commands indicative of such commands as “erase,” “cut,” and
“wrap,” and that such commands cause the commanded action, it
is unclear in Endo where there are command designators
distinguished from selection designators such that the command
designators indicate an action to be taken and the presence of
a selection designator indicates selection of that action.
Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
7–
The only explanation the examiner gives, at page 5 of the
answer, is that Endo’s wrapper is the command designator and
the arrow head, described at column 4, lines 52 et seq., is
the selection designator. However, Endo explains that a wrap
command “has a function to recognize the pattern element
enclosed by the closed pattern” and combining this wrapper
with an arrow head defines “the operator having the commands
to copy, magnify and reduce.” Thus, in Endo, it appears that
drawing the wrapper around a mark indicates that the mark, or
pattern element, surrounded by the closed pattern is to be
recognized. The arrow head then causes the command to “copy”
the pattern recognized by the wrapper. Thus, the wrapper and
the arrow head appear to be directed to two different
operations. If Endo is to be suggestive of the instant
claimed subject matter, for example, the wrapper would need to
indicate the function of “copy” and then the drawing of the
arrowhead, and sensing thereof, would indicate that the copy
function had been selected and the copy function would be
initiated.
The instant claimed invention requires that a command
designator indicates a function to be performed and that a
Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
8–
selection designator indicates the selection of that function
and the performance of the function is initiated. We do not
find this teaching in either Bloomberg or Endo, or in the
combination thereof.
Independent claim 15 similarly requires the combination
of a command designator and a selection designator, the
selection designator indicating selection of the action
associated with the command designator. Again, we find no
such teaching or suggestion in the applied references.
Independent claims 10 and 24 do not mention the selection
designator but they do call for first and second geometric
shapes of the hand drawn marks to be determined and for
analyzing the electronic renditions to find the first
geometric shape and the second geometric “nested within the
first geometric shape.” While the examiner indicates that
“Endo discloses the details of recognizing virtual circle, arc
and other geometrical shapes,”
[answer-page 12], referring to column 4, lines 1-35, the
examiner never indicates where the claimed second geometric
shape being “nested within the first geometric shape” is
suggested by the applied references. Accordingly, the
Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
9–
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to this claimed subject matter.
Since Hargrove does not provide for the deficiencies of
Bloomberg and Endo, and we have not sustained the rejection of
independent claims 1, 10, 15 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103, we
also will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-9,
11-14, 16-23 and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 2000-1531
Application No. 08/897,405
10–
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EK/RWK
RONALD ZIBELLI
XEROX CORPORATION
XEROX SQUARE 020
ROCHESTER, NY 14644